What is noteworthy about this is how selective and one-sided Maher and Dawkins are. They’re all upset about the Marxist anti-Semite Maryam Namazie being banned from speaking at a university because of her views on Islam, but have never said a word while for years Pamela Geller and I and others who tell the same truths about Islam that Namazie tells (and more consistently than she does because we do not support the “Palestinian” jihad as she does) have received the same treatment from universities and other venues. Maher and Dawkins would never think of speaking out on our behalf because they would likely think of us as “right-wing bigots” — as Sam Harris last year dismissed critics of jihad terror besides himself and his friends as “fascists.”
What Maher, Dawkins and Harris don’t seem to realize is that they only think of us as “fascists” because the same Leftist/Islamic supremacist smear machine (including their pal Namazie) that is now going after them for their “bigotry” has for years defamed us in exactly the same way, for saying essentially the same things they do about Islam. We are “right-wing” because the smear machine has called us “right-wing” for years — when I have never taken a public position on any issue other than those involving jihad and Sharia, and the claim that defending free societies against jihad terror and Islamic supremacism is a right-wing issue, or constitutes “fascism,” is a media fiction.
I expect that Maher, Dawkins, and Harris wouldn’t be caught dead in the company of Pamela Geller or me, even though we note the same truths they do and defend the same freedoms they’re defending. That is testimony only to the effectiveness of the defamation campaign that has now turned against them, for the same reason its organizers targeted us. And as long as their indignation about the threat to the freedom of speech and the hollow truncheon of the “Islamophobia” charge remains restricted only to those on the Left, it remains inconsistent and hypocritical.
“Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins Slam Liberals for Giving Islam ‘Free Pass’ Despite Link to Terrorism,” by Stoyan Zaimov, Christian Post, October 5, 2015:
Two of the most famous atheists in the world, HBO host Bill Maher and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, slammed liberals who they say are giving Islam a “free pass,” despite the human rights abuses being committed in Muslim countries and by Islamic extremist groups around the world today.
Dawkins was a guest on Maher’s “Real Time” on Friday, where Maher said it is “ridiculous” that some make out Muslims to be a “protected species.”
Dawkins added that people sometimes believe that those criticizing Muslims are racists.
Maher and Dawkins both took aim at liberals they said would shoot down free speech in order to protect Muslim sensitivities. Dawkins pointed out the case of Warwick University’s students’ union declining atheist and critic of extremist Islam Maryam Namazie the opportunity to speak at the school in October, out of fear of offending the religion.
Maher has himself faced push-back for his own university appearances, with University of California at Berkeley students starting a petition last year seeking to bar the HBO host from speaking at 2014’s fall commencement ceremony, due to his “racist” views on Muslims.
“If you can’t speak your mind at a university campus, where can you? I mean that’s what universities are about. It’s about free speech,” Dawkins said.
“So they think that if you you criticize Islam you’re being racist and you’re absolutely right that the regressive [liberals] give a free pass to Islam,” the atheist author continued. “They’re kind of right about everything else, I mean, they’re right about misogyny and all of the other good things. But in the case of Islam, it just gets a free pass and I think it is because of the terror of being thought racist.”
Maher added that those who criticize Islam are also called “Islamophobes,” which he said was a “silly word that means nothing.”
Maher, Dawkins, and other atheist authors, such as Sam Harris, have been criticized by religious commentators, such as Reza Aslan, for blaming Islam for the rise of terrorism….
Aslan added that such anti-theists get their ideas “from the most simplistic, the most unsophisticated and the most knee-jerk reaction to the very real problem of religious violence around the world,” and argued that it is “nothing less than idiotic to blame religion for religious violence without recognizing the multiple factors that are involved in violence of any sort.”
“Multiple factors” are “involved in violence of any sort.” This from a man who accused Pamela Geller and me of complicity in a murder that was initially blamed on “Islamophobia” but that turned out to be an Islamic honor killing. Aslan, of course, refused to retract.
Angemon says
Calling someone a racist is a very easy way to stifle discussion, especially in the US.
Paula Boddington says
Sadly, calling someone a racist works like a magic charm in the UK as well. You don’t even have to actually call people racist, because people are so worried, that they self censor to make sure that they can’t be called racist. Of course, since the term ‘racist’ is used so freely, people thus have scant idea what it really means, and so they become more and more fearful that they are ‘really’ racist, and so self-censor more and more. The idea goes around that being racist involves having subconscious attitudes so deeply embedded you don’t even realise you are racist. And, because many people feel unsure if they are really unconsciously racist or not, they use a mechanism designed to show that they are not . .. which is detecting ‘racism’ in other people. And so on and on it goes, in a ghastly, stultifying vicious spiral
voegelinian says
Yep; very perceptive.
Paul says
As I say, it’s best to counter the stupid “racist” accusation
by admitting to being one, i.e. not that you’re prejudiced against
people from any other races or countries, but that you’re quite
happy to be labelled a “racist” in the sense that you oppose ‘honour’
killings, FGM, stoning, butchering Jews, Christians, Apostates,
Atheists etc., executing gay people, lying (as also mandated by the
koran), barbaric ritual slaughter of animals, irrational dog hatred etc.
Checkmate. No deliberately dishonest leftist piece of crap can then
argue with you. You’ve literally prevented them from using half of the
vocabulary they have at their disposal! The other half being
“islamophobia” – in which case you then tell them that you do indeed
have an ‘irrational’ fear of ‘submission’ or being made to ‘submit’.
R Cole says
The problem is – when those who are called ‘racists’ are locked out of the debate – the solutions tend to that of the far-Left – at times more akin to socialism.
Even at the UN level to speak of the treatment of women in the Islamic world and on issues such as FGM – members are also charged with racism/ Islamophobia.
In addition former Muslims who speak about Islam – are called racist-Islamophoibes. As well as those Muslims who don’t want sharia law or warn of the dangers of political Islam in America – are also called racists and Islamophobes – and they too have their speaking engagements cancelled.
Compromised
Look at media outlets like CNN – they get a significant portion of their advertisement revenue from ME Arab sources. CNN International can at times have 80% Arab commercials. CNN will want to toe the line. When it comes to Islam the script is written – they just add a little news to it.
WWE News Network.
No help here!
::
The ‘Anti-Racism’ Agenda
The question is how do we turn the debate around or widen it to include a range of opinions.
One of the ways this can be done is to actually challenge the use of the word racism.
By turning the word ‘racism’ into an offensive term – in itself.
If someone calls you or your organisation a racist – then they had better be sure of what they are saying. Otherwise you should be able to take them to court to challenge it – for defamation of character or slander.
That would startle the snakes.
Because behind the charges of racism are agendas. There is the islamization agenda coming from Islamic sources [for the sharia for which they have no current legal means of imposing – besides the use of the term ‘racist/Islamophobe’] and the Socialists one coming from the Left. In the UK 1000’s of girls were raped by Muslim men – but to report the crimes was deemed an act of ‘racism’ — lying behind this was a Leftist political agenda for [Muslim] votes, admittedly.
Let’s Stop the Nonsense
If you claim someone is a racist – then you should be asked to prove it – in this way we expose their reasons for using the term.
You can’t take people calling you a ‘racist’ lying down. Then there are the Nazi accusations and on and on – these are attacks – on your person.
And should never be taken lightly.
::
Racism is a term when used – that cowers people into submission.
And we need to challenge its use at every level.
The word ‘racist’ has become a slur.
::
They are chopping off heads and crucifying people across the Middle East – the alternative to what we have ain’t good!!
Paul says
@R Cole
Yes, I agree with the methods suggested in taking the fight
to those cowardly and dishonest so-called ‘anti-racists’ who
are obsessed with skin colour.
The most absurd thing is that they know that we know they’re
lying, but I guess that’s the Orwellian environment we’re now living
in.
It’s no coincidence that the nations who are the most immune
to this subversion and the best equipped to deal with it, as we’ve
seen with the ‘refugee’ scam, are those who were formerly under
the grip of communist rule in the east.
Roy C says
One sees just how effective this tactic is by simply noting the reaction on Fox following gentle Ben’s remark concerning voting for a Muslim president. I’m fairly certain that no prime time Fox host would ever do such a thing but none had the courage to say so on air. Also, the lame stream media got away with twisting his words by slamming his supposed misunderstanding the constitution which of course doesn’t ban members of any religion from running. That wasn’t his point at all other than correctly stating that Islam is in no way compatible with our core beliefs as stated in the constitution and therefor he could not support a Muslim candidate. This is controversial in the land of the free???? Unreal. The left will continue to win as long as they are allowed to control public discourse in this manner.
Paul says
How to be a “racist” :
Mirren10 says
To Paula.
What you have to do, is to actually *confront* them with their nonsense, and force them to define it.
I always start by asking them; tell me what racism means.
Then I trot out the dictionary definition.
Then ask them to give some examples of what they describe as racism.
Counter this with the myriad examples of what they term racism, in the islamic world.
When they bring up the slave trade, and colonialism ( and they always do) point out it was Britain that ended the Triangular Trade, and it was Britain that made slavery illegal. Ask them if there was ever a muslim Wilberforce. Point out the KSA didn’t make slavery illegal until 1967, and that it still goes on, all over the islamic world.
As for the evils of colonialism, one example to give would be it was the British that ended the evil practice of suttee.
There are, of course, many other examples one could give.
You won’t convince them, ofcourse ( none so blind etc), but at least you will have shown them, a) you’re nit buying theircrap, and b) you are * not* intimidated by their attempted smears.
Works for me ! 🙂
Paula Boddington says
Mirren, yes, good ideas. claims about racism are often if not usuallly based on sweeping inaccuracies.
vlparker says
If John Wayne was a shootist does that mean Dale Earnhardt was a racist?
Don McKellar says
No doubt there is some of the leftist slander and blurring when it comes to Pam Geller, but that’s not the whole story, in my opinion. I can only guess, but I think that Maher and Dawkins simply aren’t interested in associating with Pam Geller because of her intense religious bent and insistence that Israel is akin to some kind of extended US state like a Middle East Hawaii or something. This is a person who won’t even spell the word god because of her religious fervor. For all the good work she does for battling Islam, any intellectual atheist is going to look at that and not be interested in associating themselves with her. That’s why I can’t read her site. It’s all just too much. I can’t guess what the reason is for them not defending Robert Spencer, though, other than perhaps some of the reasons cited by Mr. Spencer, and likely association with Pam Geller which gives them a bias.
Robert Spencer says
Don
If you don’t understand that Israel is on the front line of the global jihad and that all free people must stand with her, then you are most heartily invited not to read this site, either.
Wellington says
Don McKellar actually makes many valid points here at JW, Mr. Spencer, but I have noticed on several occasions that his animosity towards religion in general gets in the way of optimal judgment, like here. You were right to call him out as you did.
VRWC member77 says
Don,
Whether you like it or not proud shouts of atheism aren’t going to defeat Islam. Pamela Geller should be praised by every person who values free speech. To be critical of what you perceive to be “her religious fervor” is a completely pointless. Try taking on the American left in this country like she has and see how you fair.
Kepha says
Of course Mr. Spencer is right to call out anyone here! It’s HIS blog! But I will also nod to Mr. Spencer for allowing a very wide range of opinions here. I certainly note that as a Roman Catholic, he tolerates my occasional hyper-Protestant rant.
In any case, I have also noted Mr. McKellar’s animus, although I wouldn’t deny him the right to express it.
voegelinian says
“I can only guess, but I think that Maher and Dawkins simply aren’t interested in associating with Pam Geller because of her intense religious bent…”
Is that why Geller emblazons the masthead of her blog with a tribute to Ayn Rand?
Wellington says
That was a good “gotcha’, voegelinian. My compliments.
gravenimage says
Voeg, I posted my reply to Don (which is below) before reading your comments. I do try to read the entire reply thread before commenting–but I thought it just ran down as far as VRWC’s post. Unraveling these threads can be tricky…
In any case, you made the same point I did–and made it much more succinctly. As Wellington says, my compliments.
JawsV says
“This is a person who won’t even spell the word god because of her religious fervor.”
Jews spell God G-d, that’s how it is. And it’s fine. Jews are not the problem – Muslims/Islam/Mohamet/allah are the problem. Brava Pam!
DeMolay says
Israel has all ten fingers in ten holes in the Islamic dam and all the other nations are cowering in the background wondering what to do when the 11th hole appears.
Israel demands the support of every free thinking decent human being.
Mo says
@ Don McKellar
“This is a person who won’t even spell the word god because of her religious fervor.”
That is how Jews write it, out of respect. Ignorant fool.
“For all the good work she does for battling Islam, any intellectual atheist is going to look at that and not be interested in associating themselves with her.”
LOL! Because they’re bigots like you?
“That’s why I can’t read her site. It’s all just too much.”
LOL! I’m sure she’ll be crying that you left.
You’re such a bigot and a liar. Anyone who’s read Pamela’s site for years knows she doesn’t write much that could be considered “religious”, except in speaking facts about the religion of Islam and its persecution of followers of other religions.
You choose not to read her site because you’re an anti-Jewish bigot.
In case you didn’t know it, both Pamela’s site and JW are sites about ISLAM, not Judaism.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Savage says
Well, she has been a long time proponent of Jonathan Pollard being released which has nothing to do with Jihad, but has everything to do with him being an Israeli or a Jew.
Jay Boo says
Mo
“liar” is a strong word to use.
You have proved that it is appropriate though, because Don McKellar is clearly smart enough to have chosen his words deliberately, so he cannot claim ignorance as an excuse.
kay says
Don,.
I’ve massively promoted Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. And I’ve done a lot or defense of Sam Harris. I promote Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.
Re Robert Spencer: Sam Harris last year dismissed critics of jihad terror besides himself and his friends as “fascists.”
———————
The video was great. Classic Sam Harris. What Harris said in the video, near the half way point, is that fascists and religious demagogues get the direct link between Islamist violence and Islamic culture/ theology. And that atheists are marginalized..
It would be foolish for Sam Harris or anyone else to claim that Pam Geller or Robert Spencer are fascists. Both PG and RS are free speech types and RS publicly supports he UN Declaration on Human Rights. I am provably in that camp and am certain that Harris is also. So technically, I think we’re all on the same UNDHR side, and share the same primary ideological opponent. Harris does his research well.
I have great sympathy for the New Atheists. Technically they are right next door to me and all the other nontheists. The New Atheists take the offensive against religion generally, while I am oriented to fight like Hades against just one fascist religion and all expressions of fascism. Since Jesus the Nazarene was basically a pacifist and not a terrorist, I see no need to fight his team.
The counter-jihad people, theist or nontheist, should all be as happy as me to draw from RS, Acts17 Apologetics and Pastor Jay Smith. And also equally happy to make use of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, ( atheist ) Douglas Murray, and ( agnostic ) Geert Wilders, ( atheist ) Ibn Warraq or atheist Salman Rushdie.
I’m a fierce anti-fascist / pro UNDHR type and Charlie Hebdo supporter. I count atheists like Murray, Harris, Rushdie, Hitchens, Dawkins, Ibn Warraq, the late Stephane Charbonnier and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as being on “my” team overall. We come from very different backgrounds but we all support freedom of the press and laicite’. Nous sommes tous Charlie. The idea is to fight for freedom. Spill Ink, Not Blood.
Here is Rushdie on Charlie Hebdo:
In a statement yesterday, Mr Rushdie said: ‘Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today.’ Jan 7, 2015
voegelinian says
“This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today.” — Salman Rushdie
Lurking dhimmi reflexes much…?
The phrase “deadly mutation” clearly implies that “radical Islam” is something new in history and not essential, but accidental, to Islam.
kay says
V, your criticism is perfectly valid.
I simply wish to emphasize that the notable atheist Salman Rushdie condemns religion in general as “a mediaeval form of unreason.”
This is demonstrably true in the case of Islam.
gravenimage says
Don McKellar wrote:
No doubt there is some of the leftist slander and blurring when it comes to Pam Geller, but that’s not the whole story, in my opinion. I can only guess, but I think that Maher and Dawkins simply aren’t interested in associating with Pam Geller because of her intense religious bent and insistence that Israel is akin to some kind of extended US state like a Middle East Hawaii or something…
………………………
“Intense religious bent”? Is that why Ms. Geller has named her site “Atlas Shrugs”, after the most famous novel of one of the most famous American Atheists of the 20th-century–Ayn Rand?
You may sneer at the idea that Israel shares American values–but the fact is that she is the *only* democracy in the Middle East, as well as a staunch ally of ours. One does not have to be religious in any way to realize that Israel is far morally superior to the surrounding Muslim countries that want to wipe her off the map. Do you really think Israel would be no different if overrun by Muslim hordes and turned into another Syria?
Joseph says
Graven wrote..”You may sneer at the idea that Israel shares American values–but the fact is that she is the *only* democracy in the Middle East, as well as a staunch ally of ours.”
Might I add that they are still our ally despite being snubbed and betrayed over and over again by the current Obama administration.
I just pray that whoever gets in next will treat Israel with the respect they deserve. This really is in our own best interest.
gravenimage says
I agree, Joseph. I hope that Israelis realize that most Americans stand with them–whatever the shameful stance of the current administration.
Jay Boo says
Don’s writing ability is quite impressive.
Yet, intellectual smugness stupefies even the best of minds.
Mirren10 says
McKellar; I have read, enjoyed, and agreed with many of your comments here, but in this instance, you are a sandwich short of a picnic.
As others have pointed out, including Mr Spencer, Israel is **on the front line of the islamic jihad**.
Israel is the * only* democracy in the Middle East, and stands for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the equality of all people before the law.
Your strictures against Ms Geller are baseless. She is, in fact, an * atheist*. The fact she spells God, as g-d, means nothing more than that she is respectful of her fellow Jews sensibilities.
Are the people who spell God, as g-d, out murdering, raping, beheading and crucifying, over the issue of spelling out God ? No. They are not.
Any ‘intellectual atheist’ who rejects what Ms Geller says, because she spells God, as g-d, is a fool and a prat, whom we can well do without.
You won’t read her site because she spells God as g-d ? Your loss, dipshit.
Am Yisrael Chai !
Joseph says
Mirren10
Am Yisrael Chai
I stand and shout this right beside you.
The people of the world better get used to it for Israel will NEVER be destroyed, she will only get stronger.
TruthWFree says
Robert, these guys are “Johnny come lately’s”. You have been there from the beginning and I applaud you for your work in getting the Truth out on Islam. You are one of my HERO’s…Pamela is too. We’ve got to get the rest of these ignoramuses under the evil spell of Islam to shake the curse, especially those who lead our country, Obama excluded…Obama knows what he is doing and knows the real Islam…no doubt in my mind..
cs says
You can watch it here also.
Liam1304 says
Link to video here
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Hey why all the criticism here? Maher being even half right on something takes place every other year, so let’s give him kudos for his half-ass correctitude here. And, as for Dawkins, the Father of the Meme, he created a monster that only has made more agitprop more granular, he broke it into smaller pieces that can be articulated to fit inside social media. Dawkins applied shrink wrap packaging to lies, that’s been his contribution to humanity. Mob psychology contained in TCP/IP messages, that’s his legacy.
voegelinian says
Your description of Dawkins makes him sound like a somewhat pedestrian version of Baudrillard.
kay says
APF, I have not the slightest idea what you are trying to say here. You bewilder me.
Dawkins does NOT do mob psychology.
What “monster” did Dawkins create? How is agitation-propaganda “more granular” because of Dawkins? What “lies” did he package?
The meme “theory” or analogy is descriptive in nature. It is not an ideology or a poisonous type of thinking. The reference is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
————————————–
Dawkins noted the three conditions that must exist for evolution to occur:[26]
variation, or the introduction of new change to existing elements; heredity or replication, or the capacity to create copies of elements; differential “fitness”, or the opportunity for one element to be more or less suited to the environment than another.
Dawkins emphasizes that…evolution naturally occurs whenever these conditions co-exist, and…memes as also having the properties necessary for evolution, and thus sees meme evolution as…a real phenomenon subject to the laws of natural selection.
————————————
I’ve spent serious time and effort doing deep and broad internet meme-type propaganda campaigns over some years. Much of what I do is a kind of non-academic social science work as much as it is community organizing or public service outreach. I am a teacher and a rabble rouser. I think like a teacher.
Dr. Dawkins is a model of clear thinking and public communication I take sets of his videos and I propagate them. And other counter-jihad materials. It’s all meme work.
I rely heavily on Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Sam Harris for nailing the Islamic apologists. Everything I’ve seen from them is honest and responsible and really effective, and powerful models of reasoned communication. Even for someone completely indifferent to cultural jihad overall, I would still strongly recommend these two.
Dialectical questioning and investigational-type discourse go back to Socrates, who said “At least I know what I do not know.” This is the opposite of “lies”; it is what we do to figure out where someone is at and how to relate to them.
I debate Muslim apologists ( and others ). A lot. Far more than most here. But I want to know their approach and reasoning and capabilities first, what they think and say. I examined the approaches of Pope Francis, Tariq Ramadan, Reza Aslan and others.
This is all about religion, but I take a philosophical viewpoint, as do Harris and Dawkins. Religion need not be rational, but philosophy and dialogue must be.
The general and diagnostic model of discourse is philosophy, not religion or beating on people. “It is necessary only to want to get things clear.”
I think that here you are shooting blanks. I go with Dawkins and Harris. Clear?
Linde Barrera says
To kay- As per your 4:35 pm post of Oct. 5, 2015, you quoted Socrates as saying “At least I know what I do not know.” I wish I were half as smart as Socrates because I do not know what I don’t know! But I do know this: I enjoy your comments, kay. Thank you for being brainy. ?
kay says
Hi Linde. 🙂
I am working hard to try to build key social bridges and pull together coalitions. Clever talk is not for me. I’m with John Locke and John Stuart Mill. I defend the social commons with their key principles.
What most people call “knowledge” is more unexamined, contextual, incomplete, approximate, unreliable, confused, lossy, and often delusional. Like broadcast news, politics, history and religion. Claimed “knowledge” in the Koran is arbitrary and insane.
Real knowledge is reliable and demonstrable. Not just “knowing something”, but knowing HOW you know, because you can derive it. I can prove that Islam = Sharia + Jihad, just like 2 + 2 = 4.
I build big stacks of evidence-based reasoning to smash Islamic apologists. And fight Islamic culture as being sociopathic and psychopathic BY NATURE and BY TRACK RECORD, and therefore something to be avoided, kept away and opposed at all costs.
I wage strategic war against Islamic unreason, irrationality and criminal insanity. I found a deep persistent pattern: support for Islam and rebuttals to critics of Islam are all based on logical fallacies, confusion, immature thinking, arrogance, trickery and lies, irrationality, delusion, sociopathy, and even psychopathy.
And I found that the Koran and the hadith were just piles of confetti! The Koran is NOT a book! It is NOT readable. The Koran is completely INCOHERENT because none of the phrases or statements in it are clear and intelligible in themselves.
Every statement has external interpretive dependencies, and lots of the text overrides other text. Including the New Testament, which the Koran interprets as “fraud”! But the Koran as such is all just arbitrary made-up fraud by one disturbed bad guy, and it fails all tests. See
An Historical Critique of Islam’s Beginnings – Jay Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9lIuUjPs0
In terns of political speech, the Koran and all of Islam are “doublethink”, “blackwhite” and fascist control of “thoughtcrime”.
Islam is always slavery, rape, oppression, coercion, hatred, war, murder and programmed mass murder. With over 200 million killed to date. And now Europe is at increasing risk.
In Buddhist terms, Islam is Poison ( Ignorance, Grasping, and Negative Intention ), and so must be defeated with philosophy, critical thinking, co-operation and scalable force. The real war is a war of ideas. We must break the bad guy narrative in all public discourse.
There is nothing to lose but everything. Go Civilization! Beat Jihad!
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
The idea of the meme was first conceived by Dawkins. It is a stupid idea because it reduces ideas to a size too small for connective logic, the biggest shortcoming being the inability of a meme to carry deductive logic to, for example, draw a causal relationship. It’s a simplistic idea perfectly suited for social media, which is the modern day mob but with the pyschology part inflated beyond the mobs of olden days. Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat amount to info surfing, emotion surfing, without the bother of facts and logic. Dawkins started this with an eye towards criticism, but has since fallen silent. Putative intelligent discussion is served up nightly by the likes of Maher and Dawkins, who are always happy to serve you up one side of the story, *their* side, all in the wrappings of a balance not there. Dawkins was right, and horribly wrong, at the same time. As seen before with Scientific Marxism and the Science of the Ko-Ran, Dawkins the biologist has brought forth a similar application of science, pseudoscience all the way, and it’s delivering a similarly bad result.
voegelinian says
I suppose the deficiencies of the meme can be ameliorated by supplementing it with “further reading” or analysis. The problem of course becomes the ongoing situation or climate of communication whereby everyone is swimming on the surface of a memeplex with insufficient (if any) contact with more complex substance not amenable to the fast food of byte-sized digestion.
voegelinian says
“I rely heavily on Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Sam Harris for nailing the Islamic apologists. ”
I have become dismayed by Sam Harris’s gullible naiveté with regard to the Muslim “reformer” Maajid Nawaz.
More details in my two recent essays:
Does not compute: The Sam Harris/Maajid Nawaz “Conversation”
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2015/09/does-not-compute-sam-harrismaajid-nawaz.html
How to Pass as a “Moderate Muslim” in the Counter-Jihad
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-to-pass-as-moderate-muslim-in.html
kay says
V, there are youtube videos for Maajid Nawaz.
Have you seen these? Here are four.
Maajid Nawaz on ISIL & Islamism (Sunday Politics, 28/6/15)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itTG8RssKpE
This is an extraordinarily important video. It is on free speech and directly follows the Charlie Hebdo/ Paris massacre.
From which Maajid Nawaz:
“Every idea is open to scrutiny. That’s different from hate speech…
No idea is above scrutiny. No people are below scrutiny.”
Maajid Nawaz, Mehdi Hassan and Mo Ansar lock horns on Newsnight
177,141
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noOPNkxQE9M
Douglas Murray and Maajid Nawaz – Charlie Hebdo [Big Questions]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aalO6DYX3Gg
Brand new October 2015:
Maajid Nawaz on Sam Harris and the Regressive Left
voegelinian says
If you read my linked essays (and within one of them, my essay “Better Cops”), you’d see where I’m coming from with regard to Maajid Nawaz. It is my reasonable inference based upon much data that would be tedious to articulate here now, that Nawaz is using rhetoric that makes him sound like he’s going the extra mile to be as concerned & dismayed as we are by the metastasizing problem of Islamic jihad. This is a ploy I call the “Better Cop” ploy. It is “better” than the standard Good Cop ploy used by other Muslim reformers who, because they don’t go far enough in recognizing the gravity and magnitude of the problem and who blandly insist that they are “against all terrorism” and that “Islam does not teach taking innocent life” blah blah blah, have earned (appropriately) the scorn of the Counter-Jihad. In order to infiltrate the Counter-Jihad, cleverer and wilier “reformers” come along who realize they have to up their game and sound like they really feel our pain. And apparently it works, since you and Sam Harris have swallowed it, without bothering to really study the complex sophistry Nawaz employs.
kay says
V,
For the time being I give Nawaz the benefit of the doubt.
I know full well that deceit and trickery are primary characteristics of Muslim culture. And have said as much here. I am not taken in. Don’t worry about me. I am a big boy. So is Dr. Harris.
I watched four videos that had significant Nawaz material. They were reasonable.
The one I watch out for is Dr. Tariq Ramadan. I deem him a snake, a cunning and dangerous Islamic snake. Worry about Ramadan, not Nawaz. I do.
voegelinian says
kay wrote:
“For the time being I give Nawaz the benefit of the doubt.
I know full well that deceit and trickery are primary characteristics of Muslim culture. And have said as much here. I am not taken in. Don’t worry about me. I am a big boy. So is Dr. Harris.
I watched four videos that had significant Nawaz material. They were reasonable.
The one I watch out for is Dr. Tariq Ramadan. I deem him a snake, a cunning and dangerous Islamic snake. Worry about Ramadan, not Nawaz. I do.”
kay just proved my point. The fact that Nawaz arouses the instinct in a Counter-Jihad person who already has their guard up about a Tariq Ramadan shows that Nawaz is a “Better Cop”. Secondly, it’s a contradiction to say one gives Nawaz “the benefit of the doubt” yet at the same time says that one “is not taken in”. This isn’t a game. People are getting killed and we have good reason to suppose that horrific terror plots against the West are being planned as we speak, and a mass infilitration of the West is occurring, enabled by elaborate stealth & taqiyya. If someone like Nawaz comes along, he needs to be vetted with a battery of questions. I present that argument in detail here:
How to pass as a “Moderate Muslim” in the Counter-Jihad
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-to-pass-as-moderate-muslim-in.html
Until I see a counter-argument based on my argument, I remain dismayed and unpersuaded.
kay says
No. I did not “prove” your point. Sorry, V.
gravenimage says
I agree, APF–as inconsistent as Maher has been, he is one of the very few on the Left who actually dares to notice the violence of Islam–and to say so. The same is true of Dawkins.
Neither one of them has been terribly consistent–but in this current climate of apologia for Muslim savagery–especially on the Left–at least they are saying something.
voegelinian says
“So they think that if you you criticize Islam you’re being racist and you’re absolutely right that the regressive [liberals] give a free pass to Islam,” the atheist author continued. “They’re kind of right about everything else, I mean, they’re right about misogyny and all of the other good things. But in the case of Islam, it just gets a free pass and I think it is because of the terror of being thought racist.”
That’s about the 1000th time that meme has been reported, in various ways from various sources, over the years here at Jihad Watch (and a multitude of other sites as well). One wonders where Angemon ‘s mind goes when he reads such reports. Obviously not to comprehension mode.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“One wonders where Angemon ‘s mind goes when he reads such reports. Obviously not to comprehension mode.”
You don’t “wonder”, you just claim to do so because you need to push your petty, vindictive narrative – you already proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you lied when you claimed, on several occasion, that you voluntarily stopped reading my posts. And, like I said before, you’re as predictable as the usual mohammedan trolls who every so often infest this side while you whistle and look away, prefering to spend your time here deriding Counter-Jihadis – when I and PJ (for starters, later others have made the same kind of inquiries as us and arrived at the same conclusions) questioned your “the problem with islam is racism” pet theory and pointed out its holes (a.k.a. “the elephant in the room”) you replied not by giving a concise, assertive rebuttal to our criticism but by ignoring it and going to other topics deriding and mocking us, like you’re doing here. You’re hoping that if you repeat a lie long enough people will buy into it – and, of course, we had the unmitigated gall to think about and, *gasp* actually question what you say, therefore we deserve to be slandered, right?
Are you (finally) going to explain to us why is it that, according to your theory, muslims get preferential treatment over people of the same ethnicity who differ only in religion (example: african Christians vs African muslims) or are you still sticking to the dead horse of “Brown People”?
Pro-tip: just because you pretend you don’t read my posts doesn’t mean that others don’t and have to rely on your inaccurate description – and I’ve told you many, many times what I’ve said here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/bill-maher-richard-dawkins-slam-left-for-giving-islam-free-pass-despite-jihad-terrorism/comment-page-1#comment-1304681
Still waiting to hear from you on that one…
Mirren10 says
Oh, for crying out loud, voeg, will you please *stop* with this baseless, and frankly, childish, vendetta against Angemon ?
He disagrees with you. Fine. So do others. *I* disagree with you, on various points. Why aren’t you pursuing your so called grievances against *all* of us ?
And this constant calling up of various threads where you consider he’s ‘ done you wrong’ is, quite frankly, *pathetic*. Mature people are quite capable of accepting that others disagree with them, without resorting to this sort of spiteful vendetta.
This sort of behaviour is not only intensely *boring*, but is highly unlikely to range anyone on to your side. Counter Angemon’s arguments with **logic and facts**. Then people might think you have a point.
Angemon says
Mirren10 posted:
“Counter Angemon’s arguments with **logic and facts**.”
Thank you – that’s all I’ve asked for a while now.
voegelinian says
”
Oh, for crying out loud, voeg, will you please *stop* with this baseless, and frankly, childish, vendetta against Angemon ?”
Mirren hasn’t seen that for every post where I mention Angemon, Angemon has needled me 10 times — the ratio has been at least 10 to 1 (and I’m being generous here). And most of those times, I’m posting a comment that doesn’t even mention him by name. He’s the one bugging me way more than I’m bugging him. But she only castigates me, and ignores Angemon. It’s surreal.
voegelinian says
P.S. — and this isn’t some petty tit-for-tat of “he’s bothering me” / “no he’s bothering ME” — my only concern is that Angemon is defending a soft approach to this horrendous problem we all face. What’s ironic is that Mirren is far closer to my view, but instead of standing up for it against someone who routinely pesters me about my harder stance, she attacks me instead.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“P.S. — and this isn’t some petty tit-for-tat of “he’s bothering me” / “no he’s bothering ME””
Bollocks – as far as you’re concerned that’s precisely what’s this is all about. By your own words (my emphasis):
“my only concern is that Angemon is defending a soft approach to this horrendous problem we all face.”
Again, bollocks.First, it’s worth pointing out that,like a true spin doctor, you assert an unproven “truth” – what soft approach am I defending? How an I defending it? I don’t know, and you never explained, despite being asked – we just have to take what you say as being the truth. Second, I have suggest are feasible measures that I believe could (and should) be implemented tomorrow, and I have expanded on them and justified them several times:
– Immediately halt muslim immigration into Western countries
– Spread the knowledge about what islam teaches to the general population
– Mosques are to be under 24/7 surveillance
– Foreign muslims who break the law, or plot to do so, or help those who do so, are to be deported back into whatever hellhole they came from
– Existing laws are to be enforced – all countries have a penalty for treason, any muslim expressing support for an islamic terrorist organization is, de facto, committing treason
You, on the other hand, besides a dire account of the situation (“they’re killing us and we need to do something”), can only offer the semblance of a long-term solution – keep repeating that muslims are to be deported and maybe in 50, or 100, or 150 years away from now someone might get on with it. That’s the “harshness” you’re standing for.
I say “death to traitors”, you say “let traitors live a long life in a country of their choosing if people 150 years away from now agree on that, but we can do nothing now” – exactly who’s “soft”, voeg?
As a side remark, I must say I’m surprised that someone like you, who sees softness everywhere, is incredibly keen in exempting muslims from our laws:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/08/what-happens-when-a-muslim-woman-is-beaten-in-public/comment-page-1#comment-1282874
What does that mean? Well, according to that, if a muslim in the West stole from another muslim in the West, nothing should be done. Not a non-muslim though – if a non-muslim were to steal from a muslim charges would be pressed and a sentence would be carried out. Honor killings? Well, the victim was a muslim – just ignore the laws and let the perp get away with murder, literally. Unless he was a non-muslim, in which case, 25 to life. Indeed, your harshness is legendary and awe-inspiring, voeg! Many (or so I assume) would consider that a clause allowing muslims immunity from Western laws would be tantamount to give them a special status not afforded to the regular people, but not you. Only you possess the intellect required to see above and beyond the ever increasing pile of evidence proving you wrong and realizing that you’re in fact completely right – it’s everyone else that’s wrong.
voegelinian says
Here’s an example out of literally hundreds of what Angemon does — just below in this thread. Notice I didn’t even mention Angemon. He attaches himself to my comments by the MOTHERFUCKING HUNDREDS — like some kind of impish Energizer Bugs Bunny. What’s wrong with Mirren and graven that they can’t see this? It’s fucking surreal.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/bill-maher-richard-dawkins-slam-left-for-giving-islam-free-pass-despite-jihad-terrorism/comment-page-1#comment-1305408
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Here’s an example out of literally hundreds of what Angemon does — just below in this thread. Notice I didn’t even mention Angemon.”
Huh, so what? Do you need to mention me in order for me to address you?
“He attaches himself to my comments by the MOTHERFUCKING HUNDREDS — like some kind of impish Energizer Bugs Bunny. What’s wrong with Mirren and graven that they can’t see this? It’s fucking surreal.”
Again, what’s wrong with asking you questions regarding what you say? And why are acting like such a spoiled child? Why are Mirren or GI somehow obliged to step in and demand I stop addressing you?
Your time would have been better spent actually answering what I asked you – are you not Hesperado? Why are you addressing yourself in the third person? As for the “nobody likes” part, does it have anything to do with your decade or so here constantly insulting, deriding, belittling and undermining forefront figures of the CJ movement and anonymous posters alike, ascribing them completely outrageous ideas (like that time you stated Robert Spencer was genuinely expecting the islamic state to come and condemn the beheadings they’ve been doing)?
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Mirren hasn’t seen that for every post where I mention Angemon, Angemon has needled me 10 times — the ratio has been at least 10 to 1 (and I’m being generous here).”
Yes, I’m a terrible, despicable human being because I question you about your ideas while you’re a paragon of righteousness because, instead of answering my queries, you go out of your way to gratuitously slander me. And I mean it in more than one way – you don’t reply to something I ask you in one topic but someplace else you’ll claim I’m a “softie” or “asymptotic” or that my brain in no in comprehension mode.
Superb logic and standards you have there, “doctor” – somehow you’re entitled to slander me because I ask you questions. Should I drink the hemlock now, Meletus, or do you want to force it down my throat?
gravenimage says
I believe you are quite right, Voegelinian, that Islam is often falsely conflated with race, and that those who criticize the horrors of Islam are deemed “racists”. It’s an important point.
Robert Spencer has noted this many times himself. Here is one instance:
I know what you’re thinking: there you go again, Spencer, you racist, bigoted Islamophobe. Here is Barack Obama magnanimously opening America’s doors to a desperate population in crisis, and you’re demanding that our nation’s hospitality not be tendered to these poor people – and why not? Just because they are “brown”?
“Robert Spencer, FP: Get Ready: Obama Bringing 10,000 Syrian Refugees to U.S.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/09/robert-spencer-fp-get-ready-obama-bringing-10000-syrian-refugees-to-u-s
That being said, I am tired of your so often commenting not to contribute to the conversation, but just to insult your fellow Anti-Jihadists. Angemon was not even posting here–your calling him out by name was just gratuitous.
You don’t help get your points across this way–you just alienate most other people here. How does this help the Counter Jihad?
voegelinian says
“That being said, I am tired of your so often commenting not to contribute to the conversation, but just to insult your fellow Anti-Jihadists. Angemon was not even posting here–your calling him out by name was just gratuitous.”
graven is just not factoring in the actual evidence of my posts, and Angemon’s posts.
a) has she read all my comments over the past 6 months, say, to see how many are contributions with argumentation and links and evidence to help the topic along?
b) has she noticed that Angemon has been pestering me at a ration of at least 10 to 1 compared with the posts where I needle him? Most of the time when he’s pestering me, I haven’t even mentioned him in my comment.
And finally, this is not an issue of who is pestering whom — but one of Counter-Jihad principle. I am concerned about the soft approach to this horrendous problem that endnagers us, and it dismays me to see those in the Counter-Jihad who seem oblivious to these regulars promoting a soft approach. At the very least, the other regulars could jump in and weigh in to offer reasoned arguments defending Angemon if that’s what they really believe (or, God forbid, they could defend my stance); rather than most of the time doing nothing, then once in a blue moon chiming in to castigate me and leave Angemon off the hook.
Mirren10 says
” At the very least, the other regulars could jump in and weigh in to offer reasoned arguments defending Angemon if that’s what they really believe”
We’ve done so. *Many* times. But you just ignore it.
Mirren10 says
”What’s wrong with Mirren and graven that they can’t see this? It’s fucking surreal.”
What’s surreal, voeg, is that you can’t seem to see what you’re doing.
Jay Boo says
voegelinian,
I would like to take a moment to commend all the JW regulars who took on graywolfsuperhero in defense of Robert Spencer and Jaimie Glazov.
Hmmm
voegelinian says
Quoting me —
” At the very least, the other regulars could jump in and weigh in to offer reasoned arguments defending Angemon if that’s what they really believe”
Mirren wrote:
“We’ve done so. *Many* times. But you just ignore it.” — Mirren
Mirren claims they’ve jumped in to weigh in with arguments defending Angemon during those hundreds of times he has pestered me with needling about my stance on the problem of Islam. Since I have seen hundreds of instances where there is only Angemon and nobody else — and I have come back to check days afterward, she would have to show me proof of enough instances to make a difference, in comparison with the hundreds of times Angemon has done this.
Secondly, she just admitted she supports ) Angemon’s approach on the Counter-Jihad (at least in her mind, since I’ve seen no evidence of it — and she’s volunteered the same for others. “”We’ve done so. *Many* times.”
Very telling.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Very telling.”
It is telling – of you and your twisted, muslim-like thought process. You always have to be the poor, unfairly persecuted victim, no matter what, and anyone not buying your little narratives and backing your petty vengeances and side-snipping is, as muhammad would put it “of them”, and deserves the same treatment as “them”.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“graven is just not factoring in the actual evidence of my posts, and Angemon’s posts.”
There’s no evidence in your posts, voeg. You simply say that I’m wrong, that my posts are “riddled with rabbit trails of nitpicking sophistry“, etc., but you never, ever – not even once – actually get around to prove any of your accusation. That’s exactly how muslims and leftists act.
“a) has she read all my comments over the past 6 months, say, to see how many are contributions with argumentation and links and evidence to help the topic along?”
Do those alleged comments somehow excuse your habit of singling me out and slandering me? If so, then you have nothing, since most of my posts here are not directed at you – in fact, unlike you, I don’t make myself scarce when muslim trolls are running rampant.
“b) has she noticed that Angemon has been pestering me at a ration of at least 10 to 1 compared with the posts where I needle him?”
Nice dual-speak, comrade Goebbels – Orwell would be proud. Let’s see: asking you about what you say = “pestering you”. Slandering me and misrepresenting my stances = “needle me”.
“ Most of the time when he’s pestering me, I haven’t even mentioned him in my comment.”
Huh, so what? Do you need to mention me by name for me to ask you about what you say? Where’s is that rule on the ToS?
“And finally, this is not an issue of who is pestering whom”
Except that it is, by your own words – otherwise why bring it up in the first place?
“but one of Counter-Jihad principle.”
Nope. Lying about me and misrepresenting my stances adds nothing to the CJ movement.
“I am concerned about the soft approach to this horrendous problem that endnagers us, and it dismays me to see those in the Counter-Jihad who seem oblivious to these regulars promoting a soft approach.”
Who’s promoting a soft approach, and how?
“At the very least, the other regulars could jump in and weigh in to offer reasoned arguments defending Angemon if that’s what they really believe”
Huh, why? You offer no rebuttal, valid or otherwise, to my arguments – why should other people be forced to back me?
“(or, God forbid, they could defend my stance);”
what stance would that be? You come in, assume unproven statements to be the truth, and slander anyone who disagrees with you. Is it any wonder that people aren’t lining up to defend your non-existent, unexplained “stance”?
“rather than most of the time doing nothing”
But voeg, didn’t you go through this before? You, in a completely grownup and mature fashion, decided that if people said nothing they were in fact disagreeing with me:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/09/french-soccer-fan-converts-to-islam-joins-jihad-terror-group-blows-himself-up#comment-1293133
“then once in a blue moon chiming in to castigate me and leave Angemon off the hook.”
Why are you being “castigated”? Because you repeatedly insulted, derided, belittled, demeaned and slandered other users. People see you repeatedly doing that and they might act according to their values and say “look, you’re being an ass, knock it off”. Usually, when friends tell us something along those lines, one would think “you know what? maybe they’re right. Maybe what I’m doing is wrong and pointless, and maybe things would improve if I changed my attitude and actions, despite sticking to my endgame”. Not you, though – you want to have your cake and eat it “what do you mean, I’m singling him out? He replies more time to me than I slander him. And I want you to step into our arguments more, whether it’s to defend him or me, as long as you’re not taking his side or telling me I’m wrong”.
Need I remind you of what you said recently when someone did what you’re asking here (my emphasis)?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/saudi-muslim-clerics-call-for-jihad-to-defend-the-islamic-state/comment-page-1#comment-1305800
Alv Vatzdal says
I came to this website to read about the so-called “Islamophobic” authors that Norwegian media pointed out as inspirations to the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, they had a list about who was the worst one and who got money from where and commented that all seemed to have in common fundamentalist Christianity. I think you were on the top of the list, but I have to say that I agree with a lot I’ve been reading here. I also remember a documentary where you described the problems with the Koran very clearly and honestly, and I have read a lot about the powers that sent Europe sliding into darkness last century, and I don’t find any signs of right-wing ideology, fascism or the like here. When it comes to “Islamophobia” it seem to be a label being taken seriously only by Muslims that want to feel victimized, or worse, something used to silence those that don’t bow to self-censorship because of fear of terrorists. So kudos to you for being sincere and telling things like it is while being slandered. The West need more, not less, people that criticize things in Islam that really should be criticized, instead of putting a lid on the problem, until the real, dark, right-wing powers arise and use fear as a tool for violence, instead of using the pen vs. the sword.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Why is it that the right wing is always attributed the bad? Looking at the undisputed facts, the left wing (the socialists) are in power, have been for some time, and they have a uniformly bad record when it comes to performance, not just in regard to economic prosperity but even more so the decline of freedom. For example, freedom of speech has withered in Scandinavia to an extent unimaginable 20 years ago, and is now collapsing in England too.
I’d warn to watch for the left-wing powers to arise, but they already have. And the darkness is swarming over Europe as we speak. These are historical times, and there will be Winston Churchill to heroically stop it.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
No Winston Churchill, meant to type.
Wellington says
No doubt about it, APF, that there has entered into the collective thinking of those on the modern Left a totalitarian, an Orwellian, aspect, where freedom, or more to the point its dearth, is concerned. You see this on college campuses with a curriculum that is getting sillier and sillier with each passing decade and also with the hate-speech codes on these campuses. You also can find it with hate-crime legislation in one Western nation after another whereby motive is punished as well as the act (motive is important for criminal investigative work but it should never be used for reasons of additional punishment). And the MSM in Western nations have so imbibed pc/mc that it has clearly had a punishing effect on liberty.
Sad times. Stupid times. Fluid times. Not sure where things are headed but the Left in the West over the past few decades has certainly not aided the cause of freedom. Of this I am certain. I’m also certain that the modern Right, speaking in the aggregate, has been way too timid in defending liberty. After all, it is not enough to be right and know what right is, you must also vigorously defend right since it is a fragile commodity. Yes, people can easily slip into stupidity and wrong. But it takes loads of effort and courage to sustain what is smart and right.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Sad times. Stupid times. Fluid times. Not sure where things are headed but the Left in the West over the past few decades has certainly not aided the cause of freedom.
I sense that the Hijrah has announced us at an historic turning point. In history trends tend to look linear, as if they can be managed. But if the trend has a fundamental conflict underlying it, the pressure builds until it snaps, and then history is made, violently. Who would have predicted ten years ago a mass migration orchestrated by a nascent New Caliphate to sweep over EUrabia, and the German leader folding like a cheap suit in its face? Even a hardened cynic like me didn’t see this coming.
I’m also certain that the modern Right, speaking in the aggregate, has been way too timid in defending liberty.
Do not underestimate the direct influence in all of this exerted by the ruling elites. The very existence of the EU has ceded popular democratic control from its member countries to unelected faceless (and all globo-socialist-racist pro-Moslem) bureaucrats in Brussels. And now we see Boehner being replaced by McCarthy, to continue the States forging ahead without an opposition party. So the forceful defense of liberty is becoming as unlikely here as it is in England, Europe and Scandinavia.
Alv Vatzdal says
I’m sorry, with “right-wing ideology” I meant “the far right”, things like Neo-Nazism and similar. Ideologies and attitudes that are just as bad as the things they oppose.
I don’t see the same problem with left-wing politics as in the last century. People seem to be mostly disillusioned by ideologies that are supposed to bring some sort of Utopia. Instead people just want a normal life and to be free to do with their lives as they like.
But right or left are just meaningless labels really, there weren’t really any big differences between the communism under Stalin or Nazism under Hitler, Stalin murdered according to class and Hitler according to race. But I think the left-wing powers that fought against Franco in Spain represented something better, then the fascism the state ushered in, even if they called themselves communists and anarchists. The same in Greece, where the people got suppressed from the lives they wanted by British military powers. Whoever fights to bring better lives to people, peace, freedom, equality etc. are the right politics for the people.
Totalitarianism is the real danger and the type of politics I fear the most these days are what Bush presented to the world, using the fear of terrorism as a tool to remove constitutional rights. Obama haven’t brought the change he promised during his campaigns, when his acting skills even earned him a Nobel Peace Prize “in advance” since he claimed to represent an end to the blunders and lies of the last administration, but instead has continued and even broadened the powers he inherited. I’m surprised the people didn’t rise up in revolution and sent him to the gallows when he bailed out the corrupt elite at Wall Street. I guess it’s because the fear from the Bush-era, from the surveillance state. Big Brother see everything, so people are careful about what they say and do. I hope that the US don’t follow down a similar path as Russia is on. I don’t know if that’s “left” or “right”, the main point is that it is the wrong direction. Away from freedom and equality, instead of closer to it. I think every type of direction is going to go wrong sooner or later, since people in the West have turned their back to God. That was the original American freedom, as described in “Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville, where the author described how freedom and faith was not opposed to each other as in France, but entwined together. It was also the freedom Churchill stood for, “Christian Civilization”, he called it. That was the envy of the world, until after Roosevelt, with the military industrial complex and the slide to the “right” where “spreading freedom and democracy” more and more have become a new type of colonialism, and the word “democracy” is used like “civilized” was used during the British Empire.
I agree to a certain degree about the freedom of speech in Norway. The main thing that has changed is the self-censorship caused by Islam and the fear of the surveillance state. People are afraid to have too strong opinions, and like that the people can be used as the rulers like, if people just accept being sheep following what’s expected by the state.
I miss the pre-911 age. It seem like such a long time ago.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
But right or left are just meaningless labels really…
Yes, I’ve always had a problem with the metaphor. We live in a 3-D world in which politics, the most complex of processes, might even be thought of in 4-D, so the 2-D left right idea is especially misleading. I live in Minnesota, where the plurality of people are of Scandinavian descent. There are towns here with names like Lindstrom, Upsala, Norwood and Scandia, Both the Norwegian Brotherhood and Swedish Institute HQs are here. Hell, even our number one sports team is named the Vikings.
So this is a way liberal place, one that prides itself on high taxes and criminals as victims. We boast of being number one in the nation in producing Mujahidin in ISIS.
The flaw of socialism is that it always peters out by sapping a nation of its incentive. 20 yrs ago Sweden, then a nation of 6 million, had leading industries in telecommunications, chemicals, computer technology, control systems, automotive, military hardware, pharmaceutical and more. Nobody except perhaps Israel, can even come close to that. But Sweden is being sapped. Having emptied the joint of its economic energy, the ruling liberal elite is now robbing it of its freedom, and loading up with Moslems to make sure it stays that way forevermore. Minneosta is kind of following the same course.
My scandi friends touch base with me every so often to check in and see how their fatherland has further sunk since we last spoke. I tell them, they thank me, and then I ask them why don’t they keep track of it themselves. They say they don’t have the heart for it.
Wellington says
Two points: 1) I disagree with you that “the left-wing powers that fought against Franco in Spain represented something better, then the fascism the state ushered in, even if they called themselves communists and anarchists.”
No they didn’t. They were at least as bad as Franco. Actually, I would argue they were worse than Franco because at least Franco, once victorious, didn’t destroy Spain’s economy. Though I don’t want dictatorships of either the Left or Right, the fact of the matter is that at least right-wing dictators “get” how economies work far better than do left-wing dictators (e.g., Pinochet v. Castro).
Something else about the Spanish Civil War, as many historians and journalists have noted, and that is that there was a civil war within the civil war and with plenty more civil wars to follow should the Republicans instead of the Nationalists win. Communists, the CNT (anarchists) and POUM (Trotskyites) were ripping each other apart as they were fighting the Nationalists under the unified command of Franco. If the Republicans had won, instead of the Nationalists, far more carnage would have occurred for years, way beyond 1939, as someone like Orwell understood only too well.
Franco’s victory actually stopped more years of civil war. Understand, I’m not an endorser of Franco, though I do think he was the single smartest person on either side and this is the main reason why the Nationalists won (see Paul Johnson’s Modern Times for validation of this, pp.322-340), but I’m so sick of hearing how those who battled Franco were on the side of right. No they weren’t and, I would argue, Franco actually spared Spain of even more years of civil war, though, of course, it came at a great cost.
2) I utterly disagree with you that Bush 43 removed any constitutional rights. Go ahead, shatter me and tell me EXACTLY what constitutional rights Bush removed. Are you even aware that the Patriot Act (which Obama, in high irony here, has renewed) only exacted upon would-be Islamic terrorists what already existed under the RICO laws against the Mafia (e.g., public library records being able to be accessed by the federal government)?
Sorry, Alv Vatzdal. but so far you’ve given me nothing but very tired (and largely erroneous) historical platitudes which do not conform to what is most important——the TRUTH.
Your turn if you can. Your turn if you dare. Go ahead and give it a shot since I look upon argument as a sport and the truth as paramount above all. Oh yeah, your turn.
kay says
Re: I think every type of direction is going to go wrong sooner or later, since people in the West have turned their back to God. That was the original American freedom, as described in “Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville, where the author described how freedom and faith was not opposed to each other as in France, but entwined together. It was also the freedom Churchill stood for, “Christian Civilization”, he called it.
————————————-
Alexis de Tocqueville: “In the U.S., from the beginning, politics and religion were in accord, and they have not ceased to be so since.”
Here are the background articles.
http://www.historytoday.com/gemma-betros/french-revolution-and-catholic-church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9
———————-
“Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn’t argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we’re doing is, we’re presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain.”
– A.C. Grayling
gravenimage says
Alv Vatzdal wrote:
I came to this website to read about the so-called “Islamophobic” authors that Norwegian media pointed out as inspirations to the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, they had a list about who was the worst one and who got money from where and commented that all seemed to have in common fundamentalist Christianity. I think you were on the top of the list, but I have to say that I agree with a lot I’ve been reading here.
……………………..
Glad to hear it, Alv.
خَليفة says
Do you know anyone who owns a pit bull?
People I’ve know that owned a pit bull say their pit bulls are good guard dogs, vicious, mean, aggressive to strangers, but protective and loyal to the family. Others have pit bulls they raised with love and the pit bull is friendly and affectionate, but the owners warned me that you still need to be careful least you do something “wrong” that might make the dog bit you. A former pit bull breeder told me his opinion, “that breed should be eradicated” After years of breeding pit bulls he came to know that you can’t “un-breed” the dangers inherent in pit bulls, even those raised with love and kindness can still snap and harm or kill, especially a child.
Now imagine if you had a pit bull that could talk and understand you. Let’s say your dog says something like this “I want a bigger dog house. If you don’t agree to get one this week I’ll bit the next person who comes in your yard.” How would you respond?
How should government respond when Muslims say “you need to do ______ or we will might ‘bite’ you in some way”
Islam is like a pit bull, it might be kind to the kuffar at times, but there is a viscous killer ever present, waiting for a time to kill.
mortimer says
Reza Aslan said that it is “nothing less than idiotic to blame religion for religious violence”
270 million jihad deaths say otherwise.
Reza Aslan is sweeping aside millions of facts that contradict his theory. He calls these facts ‘idiotic’…but is it? Or is it FACT-BASED REASONING?
Islam hates scientific, historical, linguistic and literary facts that expose Islam as a fraud.
Jay Boo says
If Reza Aslan were to comment on this site he would probably choose a vainglorious moniker like the malicious commenter (graywolfsuperhero).
CW says
I’m so pleased you’ve written this article Robert. I used to be a supporter of Maryam Namazie, but soon realised that she allows her extremist left wing politics to shade her view of reality. I’m tired of her constant attacks on people who express common sense concern about mass migration of Muslim ‘refugees’ (mostly young male economic migrants) into Europe.
Naively, Namazie believes that every country in the world should be without borders, everyone free to wander wherever they wish – for we’re all humans and Earth is our home. It’s the most humane way to think, she says. If we disagree, we’re bigots and racists.
Maajid Nawaz concerns me too. On the positive side, I believe he truly does want to reform Islam, including by encouraging Muslims to cherry pick the peaceful and humane bits of the Quaran and Hadiths (albeit, such goodness is scant within Islam) and to separate mosque from state (secularism). He encourages use of the terms ‘Islamism’ and ‘Islamists’ when referring to political Islam and jihadists who aim to impose Islam on host nations, either through violence or by stealth.
In order to encourage Muslims to trust him, sometimes he pretends to be a believer in Mo and Allah…at least, I think he’s pretending.
He confuses me because I’ve heard him say in interviews that he’s a ‘non devout’ Muslim or ‘not religious’. And yet he also uses phrases such as, ‘my own faith, Islam’. On occasions, he even utters the excruciating ‘peace be upon him’ immediately after naming the murderous Muhammad! Is he trying to impress devout Muslims in an attempt to convince them of his religiosity? Or, is he trying to convince non Muslims that the term ‘liberal Muslim’ is not an oxymoron after all? I suspect he’s trying to be all things to all people. However, this ambiguity often fosters mistrust from both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Most of all, I’m displeased that Nawaz (just like Namazie) continues to smear people like Pamela Geller and yourself. His latest tactic is to call upon his atheist Twitter fans to follow suit in condemning the ‘Far Right’. This is supposed to make Muslims feel less persecuted.
From my own observations, both Namazie and Nawaz are arrogant dictators in the making, in danger of succumbing to full blown hubris. Namazie, especially, is apt to demand absolute loyalty from her devotees.
It also seems to me that Islamic indoctrination (including the belief that Muslims are superior to all others) conditions the mind so deeply that even when a Muslim has renounced Islam, it’s extremely hard to erase the scars.
voegelinian says
You may be focusing too much on the person/personality of Muslim “reformers” like Nawaz. Widen the focus out to see what their effect is: they have at least two effects I can think of:
1) They add to the general analytical confusion we in the West have as we grapple to get a handle on the metastasizing problem of Islam (and a goodly part of our grappling involves our fear of an ultimate prejudice against Islam and all Muslims). This confusion in turn impedes us from the clarity of the absolute condemnation of Islam and all Muslims (and of course exploiting our lurking PC MC fear of doing so).
2) They contribute to the amorphous sense & feeling that “not all Muslims are bad” — or even worse, that “there are (there must be) innumerable Muslims out there we can work with who can help us deal with the horridly metastasizing problem their Islam is causing the world”. Now this wouldn’t be much of a problem if we could in fact trust Muslims; if there weren’t the devastating problem of taqiyya.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Pardon my lack of poetic imagination, but I have a hard time figuring out the meaning of
==QUOTE==
And as long as their [referring to Maher, Dawkins, and Harris] indignation about the threat to the freedom of speech and the hollow truncheon of the “Islamophobia” charge remains restricted only to those on the Left, it remains inconsistent and hypocritical.
==UNQUOTE==
According to truncheonologists, a lead pipe or other hollow truncheon, being light-weight and more easily wielded, makes a more effective cudgel than a solid truncheon. The indignation of these three people should not be restricted only to those on the Left, but should also be directed to those on the Right? Why?
This sentence needs a rewrite.
voegelinian says
The key word is “indignation”.
Lawrence says
The problem at the end of the day is that Maher, Dawkins and Harris for that matter are all Leftists. And so they desperately desire to be loved by the Islamophile Left, even as they mock them for their Islamophilia. Also Harris and Dawkins are both a little anti-Semitic. Dawkins has signed on at least one anti-Israel petition and recently queried whether fake racist Talmud quotes were real, and stuck to his guns even after it was pointed out that they were fake. Dawkins supports the ‘Palestinian struggle’ even though it’s just Muslim Jihad, but it’s against the Jews so it’s different. Harris is on record as saying the Tanach/Old Testament is more vile and hateful than the Koran. More in that vein.
Truth is Dawkins and Harris at least (I wouldn’t group Maher with them in terms of anti-Semitism. Maher is not anti-Semitic) have more in common with the PC Left they mock than they could ever appreciate, they share the PC Left’s anti-Israelism and hatred of conservatives (real or imagined) and make common cause with them at the end of the day.
voegelinian says
“Harris is on record as saying the Tanach/Old Testament is more vile and hateful than the Koran. More in that vein”
Yes indeed. I saw him say that while he was otherwise grappling with the oily Cenk Uygur.
“Truth is Dawkins and Harris at least …have more in common with the PC Left they mock than they could ever appreciate”
Yep. And that’s a much broader problem in the Counter-Jihad, in varying degrees from the mild and less problematic, to the unfortunate — a broader problem of lurking degrees of PC MC among those in the Counter-Jihad who otherwise pretend (or actually sincerely believe) they are so much better than the PC MC or Leftist Mainstream whose worldview they think they are above. This may well be the major reason why Sam Harris has allowed himself to be duped & seduced by the pseudo-Reformer, Maajid Nawaz.
Rikki H says
I agree it’s hypocritical, but I don’t think it’s such a bad thing that lefties are waking up to the islamic threat, even though they’ll eventually be labeled “right wing”. But liberals dissing liberals about not being tough enough on islam…. Sitt back with some popcorn and enjoy it while it lasts.
voegelinian says
I applaud the tendency & reflex to cast a harsh light on Counter-Jihad Softness, and to ferret it out wherever it may rear its pretty little head. It’s an important ongoing issue that needs to be continually discussed frankly; not swept under a rug with charges against the accuser of being “against the Counter-Jihad”. It’s part of an ongoing process of quality control and clarity of analysis, clarifying what, exactly, we stand for, and what, exactly, are we against. Perhaps the most well-known meme/canard that has been a feature of this process is the category of the Moderate Muslim meme/canard — with the process reflected in an evolving, intelligent sense that the category itself is fundamentally flawed and counter-productive. Insofar as any in the Counter-Jihad have been sensible enough to undergo this evolution of thought, they would/should have good reason to cast the harsh light of criticism on their fellows in the Counter-Jihad who continue to employ the category as though it were sincerely useful. Then we would want to add a bit of sophistication, by ferreting out other terms that have the same effect as the Moderate Muslim meme/canard — but which, because they are not actually using those two specific words, are supposed to be able to squeak by into the Counter-Jihad and no one will notice (and often nobody does notice, except people like that “Hesperado” fellow nobody likes).
In this general vein, David Solway has written an excellent essay on the recent (it’s about freaking time!) development of various people in the Counter-Jihad (including Pam Geller) finally saying Enough’s Enough for God’s Sake about that preposterously incoherent Professor of the Emperor With No Clothes, Daniel Pipes.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/islam-versus-islamism-inside-the-mind-of-an-anti-anti-jihadist/
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“and often nobody does notice, except people like that “Hesperado” fellow nobody likes”
A couple of remarks:
1 – You’re that “Hesperado” fellow – no need to refer to yourself in the third person and by an older screen name, is there?
2 – As for the “nobody likes” part, does it have anything to do with your decade or so here constantly insulting, deriding, belittling and undermining forefront figures of the CJ movement and anonymous posters alike, ascribing them completely outrageous ideas (like that time you stated Robert Spencer was genuinely expecting the islamic state to come and condemn the beheadings they’ve been doing)?
voegelinian says
Hm… No weighing in by Mirren, graven image, Wellington, et al.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Hm… No weighing in by Mirren, graven image, Wellington, et al.”
And certainly no response by you – you’re that “Hesperado” fellow, aren’t you? No need to refer to yourself in the third person and by an older screen name, is there? As for the “nobody likes” part, does it have anything to do with your decade or so here constantly insulting, deriding, belittling and undermining forefront figures of the CJ movement and anonymous posters alike, ascribing them completely outrageous ideas (like that time you stated Robert Spencer was genuinely expecting the islamic state to come and condemn the beheadings they’ve been doing)?
voegelinian says
And so, my response to Mirriam’s attempt to answer my request on another, older comments thread re: Angemon (readers should note the second brief comment right after that, correcting a typo):
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/australia-muslim-who-screamed-allahu-akbar-after-murdering-police-official-regularly-attended-mosque/comment-page-1#comment-1305949
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“And so, my response to Mirriam’s attempt to answer my request on another, older comments thread re: Angemon”
Huh, what does your latest smear piece have to do with what’s going on here? Why, nothing, of course – you’re just trying to spread your propaganda far and wide.
voegelinian says
This thread is fucking surreal. Mirren and gravenimage and the others who countenance Angemon must be blind as bats. And there have been scores of threads like this over the past year.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“This thread is fucking surreal. Mirren and gravenimage and the others who countenance Angemon must be blind as bats. And there have been scores of threads like this over the past year.”
Yes, yes, anyone who disagrees with you is a “softie”, “sophist”, “Bugs Bunny”, “blind as a bat”, etc.
Now, about the matter at hand:
1 – You’re that “Hesperado” fellow – no need to refer to yourself in the third person and by an older screen name, is there?
2 – As for the “nobody likes” part, does it have anything to do with your decade or so here constantly insulting, deriding, belittling and undermining forefront figures of the CJ movement and anonymous posters alike, ascribing them completely outrageous ideas (like that time you stated Robert Spencer was genuinely expecting the islamic state to come and condemn the beheadings they’ve been doing)?
3 – Why are you so keen on playing the victim after a decade or so of spewing #2?
keith says
… it’s called political correctness, and Muslims are banking on it to infiltrate the West with their brand of fascism…
… self-loathing, guilt-stricken whites, in mortal fear of being labeled racists, are the human equivalent of the Dodo bird, an animal so loath to defend itself that it’s now extinct…
Rikki H says
Slightly OT but I have a liberal friend on Facebook (who I didn’t find out was a liberal till after I befriended her and she’s a nice girl so I actively avoid geo-politics).
Anyway this meme she posted the other week was so annoying I just had to finally hammer home hiw deluded she is, it went:
“Jesus wasnt a christian, Buddha wasn’t a Buddhist, and Muhammad wasn’t a Muslim.
They were teachers and LOVE wastheir rreligion… ”
Like, yeah I’m sure that’s the thousands of people massacre by Muhammad’s marauding savages taught their nany victims.
And I’m sure his mujahadins masses of rape victims felt the love vibe eminent from the islamic conquerors. And where any of Muhammad’s wives old (or alive) enough to understand what love is considering they were mostly pre-pubescent girls.
And I’m absolutely convinced the millions forced to convert to islam at sword-point saw Muhammad as an advocate of love (and don’t forget peace). How can people still think such idiotic sentiment in these dark days?
Rikki H says
Slightly OT but I have a liberal friend on Facebook (who I didn’t find out was a liberal till after I befriended her and she’s a nice girl so I actively avoid geo-politics).
Anyway this meme she posted the other week was so annoying I just had to finally hammer home how deluded she is, it went:
“Jesus wasnt a christian, Buddha wasn’t a Buddhist, and Muhammad wasn’t a Muslim.
They were teachers and LOVE wastheir rreligion… ”
Like, yeah I’m sure that’s the message the thousands of people massacred by Muhammad’s marauding savages learned that exact lesson.
And I’m sure his mujahadins masses of rape victims felt the love vibe eminent from the islamic conquerors. And where any of Muhammad’s wives old (or alive) enough to understand what love is considering they were mostly pre-pubescent girls.
And I’m absolutely convinced the millions forced to convert to islam at sword-point saw Muhammad as an advocate of love (and don’t forget peace). How can people still think such idiotic sentiment in these dark days?
Shmooviyet says
Your FB friend may indeed be a nice person; she’s also desperately in need of schooling on one self-proclaimed ‘prophet’ and the ideology he invented, perhaps from a place like JW.
The meme you quoted was immediately familiar; something quite similar is floating around on bumpers alongside fading “coexist” stickers. I’ve yet to see a message so multi-culti or tolerant on a muslim co.’s taxi.
Rikki H says
Sorry for the repeated post, I can’t see what I’m typing on my stupid phone, and predictive text doesn’t help matters. Please delete the first as it’s somewhat jumbled, the second is an attempted edit.
BC says
Well Mr Spencer
I think you are seriously out of line here.
I expect that Maher, Dawkins, and Harris wouldn’t be caught dead in the company of Pamela Geller or me, even though we note the same truths they do and defend the same freedoms they’re defending.
In stead of castigating these people, why do you not arrange a meeting or conference with them
and discuss your points of difference. I am a keen follower of you and Pamela but sometimes your hatred of the left leads you down the wrong path, there are many good people on the left. I am a life long socialist from three generations of socialists but I feel I have nothing in common with the socialism of today
I feel I am in a political no man’s land. However I am sure there are many like me and I do not accept your sweeping views that all on the left are evil. Jamie Glasov is the same, because his family suffered under communism he is understandably anti communist but that does not mean that all left thinking people are bad people.. Like right wingers not all think alike either.
Most of human progress since the nineteenth century has been driven by socialist ideas.. The right has never cared about ordinary people.
ich says
I don’t think Robert is out of line at all.
Hes not anti anything other than anti bad guys.
Frustrations fuel fire.
To sit on the fence and be sullen and in a hippy state
of tranquility does not solve problems either.
Remember , its the so called “left” giving Islam a free ride.
Jesus said turn the other cheek not turn the other way.
Just my 2 bits and Im not a nutjob
Jay Boo says
Cry me a river BC
You have no problem pointing out (religious leaders) who are inconsistent and hypocritical. Are Dawkins, and Harris above all reproach?
BC said “… why do you not arrange a meeting or conference with them”
BC, Did you not read —–
“I expect that Maher, Dawkins, and Harris wouldn’t be caught dead in the company of Pamela Geller or me, even though we note the same truths they do and defend the same freedoms they’re defending”
Lorna Salzman says
To socialist BC: Virtually all of my political positions mirror those of the left (I was a candidate for the U.S. Green Party’s presidential nomination in 2004)… single payer health care, economic inequality, punish Wall St. and bankers, you name it …but after following the left/Marxist/socialist gang for decades, I now regard them as neo-fascists intent on curbing free speech and dissent while they ignore the totalitarian
acts of Islam (enslavement of women, honor killings, child marriage, censorship, unity of religion and state).All of this arises from their hatred of the US and their motto (The enemy of my enemy is my friend). They deny that the religion of Islam is at the root of radical Islam and terrorism because if they admitted it, this would undermine their absurd charge that American foreign policy is responsible for terrorism. The left in the US and in the UK is despicable, mendacious, and not least substantially responsible for the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. Rosy colored dreams of “socialism” went out long ago. As a eco=”leftist” devoted to Enlightenment values and free speech, reason and dissent,
I consider the left to be as dangerous to secular democracy as Islamism is.
Lawrence says
I used to be just like you, very left-wing and I still support more left-wing economic policies, national health care; but the Left as a whole, almost without exception are simply despicable and fascist, and I include the mainstream Left. They disgust me more than Muslim fanatics and neo-Nazis, since the latter two groups are at least honest about what they are and their goals, although of course Muslim fanatics can spin and weave as much as any, taqiyya and all that.
voegelinian says
“In stead of castigating these people, why do you not arrange a meeting or conference with them”
The Counter-Jihad would benefit enormously from a long videotaped conversation between Spencer and Sam Harris — say, three installments, each one 90 minutes. Why won’t it happen? Because both of them don’t want to. That’s the only reason.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“both of them don’t want to. That’s the only reason.”
If you say so, Dr. Mind Reader.
Lorna Salzman says
How can I stop getting follow up comments without unsubscribing? There are too many and they arent the ones that interest me.
Angemon says
If you subscribe JW you get notifications of new articles, but in order to get notifications of follow-up comments you need to check the check-boxes under the text area used to post your comment. Notification emails should come with a foot note saying “Want less email? Unsubscribe from all follow-up comments or modify your Subscription Options”, and includes the relevant links.
voegelinian says
Hm… No weighing in by Mirren, graven image, Wellington, et al.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Hm… No weighing in by Mirren, graven image, Wellington, et al.”
And certainly no response by you. You claimed that both Robert Spencer and Sam Harris don’t want to have a long, videotaped (sticking to the classics, eh?) conversation about islam because they both of them don’t want to. Do you have some sort of evidence to back it up or did you just read their minds and we just have to take what you say as the truth?
Angemon says
voegelinian:
“The Counter-Jihad would benefit enormously from a long videotaped conversation between Spencer and Sam Harris — say, three installments, each one 90 minutes. Why won’t it happen? Because both of them don’t want to. That’s the only reason.”
Well, well, looks like someone has some explaining to do (and crow to eat):
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/bill-maher-richard-dawkins-slam-left-for-giving-islam-free-pass-despite-jihad-terrorism/comment-page-1#comment-1305942
Of course, it will be a cold day in hell before voegelinian admits he spoke without knowledge of cause, humbly apologizes for it, retract his words, explain why he said what he said, learns his lesson and promises never to do anything like that again – even with someone other than me pointing this out.
voegelinian says
Noting on one’s own blog parenthetically that one “would be fine working with any one of them” is not the same thing as picking up the phone, calling Sam Harris, and saying, “Hi Sam, this is Robert Spencer. I think for the public good of this most important issue of the problem of Islam, we should get together for a public discussion — would you like to do that?” (and vice versa).
(Note for demonic sophists like Angemon: the locution “picking up the phone” doesn’t necessarily mean literally picking up a literal phone and making a literal phone call; it means directly communicating with someone — in (one then reasonably infers) any of the various modes of communication the 21st century offers; such as, oh, let’s see…. one of those electronic mail services, for example…)
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Noting on one’s own blog parenthetically that one “would be fine working with any one of them” is not the same thing as picking up the phone, calling Sam Harris, and saying, “Hi Sam, this is Robert Spencer. I think for the public good of this most important issue of the problem of Islam, we should get together for a public discussion — would you like to do that?” (and vice versa).”
It is, however, evidence that you tried to feed us a large shovel of steaming bulls***, and that you’re incapable to admit you are wrong – just as I predicted. It was just another of your attempts to deride and undermine Mr. Spencer by ascribing him a position no one in their right mind (and I think this is a key factor here) would phantom giving the available evidence.
“(Note for demonic sophists like Angemon: the locution “picking up the phone” doesn’t necessarily mean literally picking up a literal phone and making a literal phone call; it means directly communicating with someone — in (one then reasonably infers) any of the various modes of communication the 21st century offers; such as, oh, let’s see…. one of those electronic mail services, for example…)”
So why not just say “contact Sam Harris” instead of spending half of your post describing the metaphorical phone call and the other half explaining that what you wrote didn’t actually meant what it meant but it meant something else entirely different?
Now, are you going to admit you were wrong, apologize, retract your words and promise not to do it again?
Angemon says
voegelinian:
“The Counter-Jihad would benefit enormously from a long videotaped conversation between Spencer and Sam Harris — say, three installments, each one 90 minutes.”
Your lack of consistency is astonishing. Let’s see:
– you ran a blog (jihad watch watch) solely dedicated to denigrate Jihad Watch analysts, especially Mr.Spencer, of whom you wrote a 4-part essay explaining why is was a softie who didn’t get islam
– you certainly don’t consider Sam Harris as someone who gets islam, particularly since his partnership with Maajid Nawaz
And yet, despite the mountain-sized pile of data indicating you despise them and their views, and find them sorely lacking, you somehow manage to say that the CJ movement would stand to benefit from a long conversation between them. The only possible conclusion is that this is another of your smear pieces – you don’t really care whether or not Mr. Spencer and Mr. Harris stand side by side, your goal here is to denigrate their character, again: “oh, they could improve the CJ movement, it’s just that they don’t want to”.
You’re despicable and a detriment to the CJ movement.
kay says
Re: Robert Spencer and Richard Dawkins
Both RS and Dawkins are very reasonable men. You can tell by watching their communication styles on youtube. It’s obvious.
At the same time, they definitely represent very different and competing cultural groups.
I strongly support both these thought leaders.
For the purposes of counter-jihad, what is most needed is a big tent approach.
Basic communication or a working relationship between RS and RD would be incredibly valuable. They could really help each other in this fight. Probably very few have thought of that due to the cultural divide.
This type of broadly based co-operation is not really in the character of the deeply faithful Christians nor of the New Atheists, but yeah, New Atheists like Dawkins and Sam Harris engage Muslims. It’s all about necessary communication.
It wouldn’t be something vile like dealing with a Reza Aslan.
In the mean time I have been promoting both RS and RD. Because we all share the same implacable foe. I got that at the beginning. Dr. Bill Warner emphasizes universal co-operation as a highest priority for counter-jihad. It’s obvious. Bill Warner is right about everything. We are all in for a really tough fight. Nothing else will work.
DP111 says
Robert Spencer: I expect that Maher, Dawkins, and Harris wouldn’t be caught dead in the company of Pamela Geller or me, even though we note the same truths they do and defend the same freedoms they’re defending..
The feeling is mutual. No truth telling individual should be caught dead in the company of appeasers of totalitarian ideologies.
.
tkaira(3.7) says
I was really disappointed when i went to Spencer’s links on Namazie, showing she doesn’t understand israel and also that she called Spencer a bigot. She was really important in The one Law for All campaign in England (an anti sharia movement) so i figured she would be smarter on this.I find it strange that atheists who used to be muslim always have something messed up inn their thinking there is Cenk Ugyer, Namazie and others who don’t understand israels situation at all.I am atheist as hell and don’t get why jihadwatch is not partnered easily with the likes of the richarddawkins foundation. They both stand for secularism so wtf?
Martin Schwartz says
Sorry Robert – while you have not have taken a “right-wing” position, your colleague Pamela Geller has. She also rails against anti-abortion supporters and against Obamacare. She does involve herself in domestic issues which are not about Islamic fundementalism.
I’ve suggested she not attack progressives like me who do see the Jihadi threat, support your efforts and are willing to stand up publicly in our towns to oppose it and defend you…but to date she doesn’t get this.
That’s likely why Mahr, Harris and Dawkins…likely still want some distance.
A bigger political tent is needed here against this world-wide threat. And while it’s unfortunate that largely right wing Republicans see the threat more clearly still than Democrats..progressives like NJ. Senator Robert Menendez do see the light and should be supported.
Robert Spencer says
Martin
Are you serious? You’re claiming that Pamela Geller supposedly “rails against anti-abortion supporters” and yet is somehow simultaneously “right-wing”?
Insane.
In any case, the small-tent folks are Maher, Dawkins and Harris. They will have nothing to do with those who have been smeared as “right-wing,” while I would be fine with working with any of them.
kay says
Re RS: “the small-tent folks are Maher, Dawkins and Harris. . . I would be fine with working with any of them.”
———————————-
Well, there you have it. Once again, Robert Spencer has the right approach. If Dawkins and Harris engage Muslims but not RS, then the people who lose are those two.
Bill Warner would be very unhappy to hear that two fellow PhD scientists could not meet RS half way.
We’re in a real war here and we need to work together. RS gets that. I certainly get that. Maybe some others don’t get that at all. Maybe what is more important than a PhD is just some common sense co-operation.
We had to work with some really difficult and dangerous people in World War II out of sheer necessity. People need to tackle the big challenges together.
My thanks to Robert Spencer for putting up with all the interpersonal difficulties while Caring About The Big Things.
Once a person really decides to Care About The Big Things there is really no going back, but dealing with people can feel a lot more difficult.
“I love humanity; it’s people I can’t stand.”